In my opinion I assume that Jesus was raised in the faith of Joseph who I believe was a sadducee or temple jew.

We don't have much information on Joseph's faith, but most of Christ's teaching is much closer to the Pharisees than the Sadducees. An afterlife is a Pharisaic teaching, denied by the Sadducees, following the original Jewish tradition.

It's notable that the Sadducees tried to trap Jesus into revealing himself as a Pharisee in the famous question-and-answer re marriage in Matthew 22.

The fact that there is a cup in Valencia that gave origin to many legends, and that even a part of the Arthurian myths can be traced to it, I believe it is important.

Is it the REAL cup of the Last Supper? I guess it is unlikely. However, what is based on solid ground is that the cup is old and that exist at least from the Middle Ages, and that even Hitler once wanted to have it.

The study of the ancient myths, of the alchemical books and of the cathedrals' symbology could sound strange to many, but it has an historical value and shouldn't be avoided. It is the same value than any other historical study.

We should not confusse the myth (which is an objetive thing: a story, a script) with what the myth tells which, most of the cases, is just fantasy or a symbology.

It doesn't make much difference to the rest of your post, but personally I'd bet Joseph was a Pharisee.

I don't know though, I have my reasons for associating Joseph with the Sadducees rather than the Pharisees.

1. I was under the assumption that the Pharisees intended to replace the ruling officials of the Temple. However Joseph seemed to have at least a decent relationship with those at the temple since he managed to lose Jesus in there. So even if he wasn't with the Sadducees he probably wouldn't have been liked by the Pharisees.

2. Jesus apparent contempt for the Pharisees, where would he get such seemingly inborn disdain for this sect? Could it be perhaps by his foster father, who perhaps saw them as becoming far too arrogant and self-righteous?

3. Apocryphal writings say that Joseph wed Mary in a Temple ceremony (Gospel of James I believe?) thought up by Temple priests, that doesn't seem like something a Pharisee would do.

Joseph to me honestly seems to be more of an apolitical nondivisive blue-collar kind of guy. However I think he sympathized more with the Sadducees, if for no other reason, he was surrounded by Pharisees and didn't like them.

The more I think about it, I think this is my opinion of the Holy Family religious belief.

Joseph- born Pharisee convert to Sadducee.Joachim and Anna- rich couple (so probably Sadducee) and thus Mary would have been born a Sadducee.

Jesus- Sadducee by birth, by virtue of parentage, besides it gives his coming a sense of legitimacy if it's "a continuation of the Temple". Later on he becomes an Essene as he tries to figure out who he really is before he began his ministry.

Of course I'm basing this on what I see as common sense, and not being an expert can be completely wrong on any and all of this.

An afterlife is a Pharisaic teaching, denied by the Sadducees, following the original Jewish tradition.

Do you have any interesting sources (books, websites, etc.) that you can recall off the top of your head about what roman era jews believed their afterlife to be, because I've heard different things, ranging from living through your sons lives to becoming a dried husk in sheol.

did you know that there where multiple gosples and the church picked the 4 gosples out them selves.

I am fully aware of the fact seeing as how I mentioned Apocryphal gospels in my above post. And saying the church picked 4 and only 4 gospels makes it sound like a conspiracy. The ENTIRE church had a council and determined that the four gospels are the most theological sound and least likely to contain error, the other gospels aren't condemned as a rule, but they are suspect as to their accuracy.

who is to say that the other gosples did not mention a child in them??

No where in any of the apocryphal works is it mentioned or suggested that Jesus had a child. This by itself should say something, since if there was even a slight chance of this happening someone would have brought it up.

And yes I'm aware of the gnostics, but they seem to me to have just incorporated christianity into their all ready existing pre-christian beliefs so anything they have to add has to be taken into context, and even then I don't believe they mention a child, they just raise up the feminine aspects.

You are probably correct on the original point that Joseph probably didn't pay too much attention to the doctrinal differences of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

However Jesus' teaching is essentially Pharisaic not Sadducee in its message of resurrection and afterlife rewards and punishments, though it is neither Pharisaic nor Sadducee in its rejection of overscrupulous study of, and reliance on, the law.

When he denounces the 'scribes and Pharisees' as hypocrites (passim ) he is criticising not their doctrine but their practice of it. On the other hand his differences with the Sadducees is doctrinal.

And let's not forget Paul before the Sanhedrin: "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6). It is of course possible that Paul here is just lying to get himself out of a hole, but that's somewhat uncharitable.

I don't think there's any doubt that at the time, Jesus and his disciples were seen as preaching a populist version of Phariseeism.

Which is why I tilt the probability of his (earthly) father being a Pharisee too (in of course the technical doctrinal sense). It is true that he seems to have some kind of in with the temple authorities, but after all (as the Paul quote above makes clear) the Sanhedrin was pretty much divided between the two parties. The Bible tends to lump together the 'priests and elders' and I think that's a reference to the Sadducee priests and the Pharisaic teachers (whom we would now call rabbis).

A couple more points below.

Originally posted by JanusRook

It doesn't make much difference to the rest of your post, but personally I'd bet Joseph was a Pharisee.

I don't know though, I have my reasons for associating Joseph with the Sadducees rather than the Pharisees.

1. I was under the assumption that the Pharisees intended to replace the ruling officials of the Temple. However Joseph seemed to have at least a decent relationship with those at the temple since he managed to lose Jesus in there. So even if he wasn't with the Sadducees he probably wouldn't have been liked by the Pharisees.

2. Jesus apparent contempt for the Pharisees, where would he get such seemingly inborn disdain for this sect? Could it be perhaps by his foster father, who perhaps saw them as becoming far too arrogant and self-righteous?

It could have meant that, but you can still read him as a Pharisee originally. After all the Sadducees were also arrogant and self-righteous. (At least as portrayed by the other sides.)

3. Apocryphal writings say that Joseph wed Mary in a Temple ceremony (Gospel of James I believe?) thought up by Temple priests, that doesn't seem like something a Pharisee would do.

But I know nothing of Jewish wedding customs of the period. I believe modern Jews break something at a wedding because they cannot get married in the Temple.

Joseph to me honestly seems to be more of an apolitical nondivisive blue-collar kind of guy. However I think he sympathized more with the Sadducees, if for no other reason, he was surrounded by Pharisees and didn't like them.

The more I think about it, I think this is my opinion of the Holy Family religious belief.

Joseph- born Pharisee convert to Sadducee.Joachim and Anna- rich couple (so probably Sadducee) and thus Mary would have been born a Sadducee.

Jesus- Sadducee by birth, by virtue of parentage, besides it gives his coming a sense of legitimacy if it's "a continuation of the Temple". Later on he becomes an Essene as he tries to figure out who he really is before he began his ministry.

Jesus may have been an Essene at one time (forty days in the wilderness?) but he definitely didn't stay one.

Of course I'm basing this on what I see as common sense, and not being an expert can be completely wrong on any and all of this.

That qualifies you to join my club.

An afterlife is a Pharisaic teaching, denied by the Sadducees, following the original Jewish tradition.

Do you have any interesting sources (books, websites, etc.) that you can recall off the top of your head about what roman era jews believed their afterlife to be, because I've heard different things, ranging from living through your sons lives to becoming a dried husk in sheol.

Sources is tough because I've acquired these beliefs over the years. However there is a key passage in Daniel 12.

But I know nothing of Jewish wedding customs of the period. I believe
modern Jews break something at a wedding because they cannot get
married in the Temple.

That would be an interesting thing to learn, I wonder if any of our jewish forumers have any information on the subject.

Jesus may have been an Essene at one time (forty days in the wilderness?) but he definitely didn't stay one.

Of course not, at that point religion was meaningless to him. Uh, I mean that in the sense that he finally realized that he was the Word made flesh and knowing the Truth, worldly religion didn't matter.

So that I wind up at least speculating that the doctrine of resurrection somehow got imported into Judaism during the captivity.

The persian religions seem to have influenced Judeo-christianity quite significantly. I wonder if they [the persian religions] had similar beliefs in the afterlife to each other.

Faith in ones beliefs is to be commended but folks have faith in many differing and often questionable things.

Of course, but the virginity of Mary is a religious matter, the bloodline of Jesus is, actually, not, since this has been promoted by conspiracy theorists. There may have been religious cults believing this too, but the modern day followers of this idea does not follow the idea because their religion says so.

did you know that there where multiple gosples and the church picked the 4 gosples out them selves.

I am fully aware of the fact seeing as how I mentioned Apocryphal gospels in my above post. And saying the church picked 4 and only 4 gospels makes it sound like a conspiracy. The ENTIRE church had a council and determined that the four gospels are the most theological sound and least likely to contain error, the other gospels aren't condemned as a rule, but they are suspect as to their accuracy.

Janus, you mention a council, which was this? I thought the process was an evolution where the different congregations decided which gospels they considered genuine, a decision only counting for their congregation. Later, as the congregations gained more interaction between themselves, the Bible gradually was shaped.

However, the Church fathers did not destroy the "gospels" left out, as many of them contained Christian teachings, but they simple couldn't guarantee the authenticity, consequently these writings did not end up in the Bible.

Also, the Gnostic teachings would probably not contain any idea of a Messianic bloodline. In Gnosticism, the sexual union is considered impure, since the union creates flesh, which is impure, and therefore a Gnostic would never promote the idea of Jesus having descendants.

Give me proof of one pre-modern religious cult believing in this idea.

Janus, you mention a council, which was this? I thought the process was
an evolution where the different congregations decided which gospels
they considered genuine, a decision only counting for their
congregation. Later, as the congregations gained more interaction
between themselves, the Bible gradually was shaped.

It wasn't an ecumenical council. It was the synod of Hippo, where many Bishops were in attendence and it was also brought up at the Council of Carthage. In the beginning many people arranged their own Bible's but under the influence of these councils and the creation of the Latin Vulgate the Bible had it's books, of course it should be noted that by the 500's the Cannon of the Bible was agreed upon.

However, the Church fathers did not destroy the "gospels" left
out, as many of them contained Christian teachings, but they simple
couldn't guarantee the authenticity, consequently these writings did
not end up in the Bible.

That's what I said.

the other gospels aren't condemned as a rule, but they are suspect as to their accuracy.

Give me proof of one pre-modern religious cult believing in this idea, because I have never heard of this outside of modern times.

Janus, you mention a council, which was this? I thought the process was
an evolution where the different congregations decided which gospels
they considered genuine, a decision only counting for their
congregation. Later, as the congregations gained more interaction
between themselves, the Bible gradually was shaped.

It wasn't an ecumenical council. It was the synod of Hippo, where many Bishops were in attendence and it was also brought up at the Council of Carthage. In the beginning many people arranged their own Bible's but under the influence of these councils and the creation of the Latin Vulgate the Bible had it's books, of course it should be noted that by the 500's the Cannon of the Bible was agreed upon.

However, the Church fathers did not destroy the "gospels" left
out, as many of them contained Christian teachings, but they simple
couldn't guarantee the authenticity, consequently these writings did
not end up in the Bible.

That's what I said.

the other gospels aren't condemned as a rule, but they are suspect as to their accuracy.

Also, the Gnostic teachings would probably not contain any idea of a
Messianic bloodline. In Gnosticism, the sexual union is considered
impure, since the union creates flesh, which is impure, and therefore a
Gnostic would never promote the idea of Jesus having descendants.

I agree, yet it is through Egypt and gnosticism that most theories about the divine bloodline originate.

Give me proof of one pre-modern religious cult believing in this idea, because I have never heard of this outside of modern times.

Janus, you mention a council, which was this? I thought the process was an evolution where the different congregations decided which gospels they considered genuine, a decision only counting for their congregation. Later, as the congregations gained more interaction between themselves, the Bible gradually was shaped.

It wasn't an ecumenical council. It was the synod of Hippo, where many Bishops were in attendence and it was also brought up at the Council of Carthage. In the beginning many people arranged their own Bible's but under the influence of these councils and the creation of the Latin Vulgate the Bible had it's books, of course it should be noted that by the 500's the Cannon of the Bible was agreed upon.

However, the Church fathers did not destroy the "gospels" left out, as many of them contained Christian teachings, but they simple couldn't guarantee the authenticity, consequently these writings did not end up in the Bible.

That's what I said.

the other gospels aren't condemned as a rule, but they are suspect as to their accuracy.

Also, the Gnostic teachings would probably not contain any idea of a Messianic bloodline. In Gnosticism, the sexual union is considered impure, since the union creates flesh, which is impure, and therefore a Gnostic would never promote the idea of Jesus having descendants.

I agree, yet it is through Egypt and gnosticism that most theories about the divine bloodline originate.

I should have known about Hippo, thanks for pointing out.

Also, when talking about the selection of the gospels, I fully agree, just wanted to fill you in

Finally: No, I can't give you any evidence of any such pre-modern cult, because I don't know of any such. But since I don't know of any, I mentioned the possibility because I weren't sure there were none such cults. If you get me.

Just to make an important thing very clear: Mary Magdalen is not mentioned as a harlot in the Bible, and was not regarded as one until a pope gave her that title to make her a role model for prostitutes.

Just to make an important thing very clear: Mary Magdalen as a harlot , was not regarded as one until a pope gave her that title.

Yep! exactly that.

Altering past history and then having future generations believing in something that wasn't true seems to me a regular occurrence. If a Pope can relate change of one truth then other popes/peeps could/did similar.

Therefore what is truth and what are lies?

The grail itself may be nothing more than seeing and believing beyond the mundane to a time before the lies started. (could be anything! and your guess is as good if not better than mine)

Just to make an important thing very clear: Mary Magdalen as a harlot , was not regarded as one until a pope gave her that title.

Yep! exactly that.

Altering past history and then having future generations believing in something that wasn't true seems to me a regular occurrence. If a Pope can relate change of one truth then other popes/peeps could/did similar.

Therefore what is truth and what are lies?

The grail itself may be nothing more than seeing and believing beyond the mundane to a time before the lies started. (could be anything! and your guess is as good if not better than mine)

What other alterings of history did you have in mind?

As for this incident about Mary the Magdalen, it is well known when her role as a harlot began. Changes as these are discovered by comparing texts.

As for the grail, it probably has been based on some mystic item prior to the Arthurian legends, an item found in Celtic mythology most likely as have been mentioned earlier in this thread.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum